27 Comments

The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Yes, climate does change, and it has since the planet was formed. Can man stop or start this change? The research I have seen says no.
Natural events like volcanoes influence our climate much more than man could ever do.
If you look at the past geological record, we have gone through several super cycles of increased weather activity. All natural.
Unfortunately, climate change stopped being a science debate years ago and is now either a political stand, or someone's religion.
And you know what they say about discussing religion and/or politics...

Joel, the nice thing about the Crocks is that you can find supporting evidence. How about sharing your sources? And actually, if you took just a few minutes to search the Crocks you would see where the volcano crap is one of the largest Crocks out there. Good Luck.

It always seems just a little weird to me that people don't think dumping millions and millions of tones of carbon into the atmosphere per year won't have an appreciable affect.
Yes, you know it may have stopped being a pure science debate years ago. Because people arguing against man-made climate change have stopped using credible science years and years ago.
But, please... enlighten us how sunspots are the cause of it all. I'd love to hear that again.

I find it very simple.
What is a likely scenario if Climate Change being accelerated by man and we do nothing about it?
Total change of our weather causing the Midwest to turn to desert and turning Minnesota into Nebraska.
What is a likely scenario if we act like Climate Change is man-made and try to reduce our emissions and find alternative fuels?
Cleaner air, water and soil, less dependence on foreign energy sources, new manufacturing jobs and the return of American ingenuity.
Since the potential consequences of believing Climate Change is a sham far outweighs the consequences of acting like it is real, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

Scientists today cry global warming. In the 1970s an ice age was imminent. The earth has been around for billions of years killing off species at will through warming and cooling in natural cycles. The scientists don't know jack when it comes to this stuff.

Google is your friend:
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10289-the-famous-woods-experiment-fully-explained
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Global-Warming-Journal-Happer/2012/03/27/id/433983
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Climate+change+hoax/6693283/story.html
http://www.climatechangehoax.com/index.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_global_warming_hoax_how_soon_we_forget.html
As I said before, it's pointless debating someone's politics or religion. Climate change has now become faith based, a type of new age religion. And while I'm all for saving energy, and resource conservation, I just can't swallow the chicken little aspect that many bring to this party.
Best wishes all!

Those are all non-scientific, partisan sources. 98% of scientists in the field must be part of the world's greatest conspiracy according to sources like American Thinker. Our democracy has devolved to the point where your ignorance shares equal footing with my science.- paraphrasing Asimov.

"Scientists don't know jack about this stuff." Huh? It's been know since the 19th century that carbon dioxide traps heat. It is also known that there is a lot more of it in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution began, and the level is increasing every year. Global warming is in no way mysterious. Neither is the source of most deniers' disinformation -- propaganda put out by energy companies.

From Joel's reference #3: "Global temperatures have remained virtually unchanged in the past 10 years."
From NOAA :
More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record.
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Joel's fourth reference says the same thing -- no global warming for a decade, except that decade was the warmest on record! See how that works?
From Joel's fifth reference: "High temperature records set on the East
Coast in July were caused by unusually warm moist air."
That is backward. The moist air is due to the heat.
His last "reference" says CO2 is a beneficial gas (true, at proper levels) and that "warming is good." Hard to know where to begin to respond to that sort of silliness. Warming is good if you don't mind that the sea levels are rising. If you don't mind that glaciers billions of people depend on for water are melting. If you don't care that the permafrost is melting, releasing more greenhouse gases. On and on.
His first reference (sorry for going out of order, I didn't plan on debunking this crap) is another one saying that things didn't heat up in the hottest decade on record.
His second reference regards experiments with literal greenhouses.

Good comments, but as I said this debate this fruitless!
Even James Lovelock now admits that we just don't understand the systems involved:
"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books - mine included - because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said.
"The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said.
"The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time... it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.
He pointed to Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" as other examples of "alarmist" forecasts of the future.
I think it is best for us all to concentrate on practical methods that support environmental conservation.
The key difference between environmentalism and conservationism?
Environmentalism is the non-use of resources.
Conservationism is the wise use of resources!

Well, folks, thanks for contributing to my understanding of Duluth. PDD has a greater intellect it seems than the commentators at the DNT, and there are Joels everywhere.
Well before An Inconvenient Truth Dr. James Hansen testified numerous times before Congress about the reality of climate change. 20+ years ago they were explaining that a drastic increase in extreme weather events. Shorter, wetter winters and longer dryer summers with the occasional "odd ball event" thrown in. These things are happening as foretold. It is not a debate, it is now history. What, if anything, can you do about it?

Here is an exercise that will take about 15 minutes of your time. Write this sentence on a sheet of paper: "I believe that Climate Change is ________________________ and I intend on doing _____________________________ about it."
Sign your name, fold and seal in an envelope and give this to one of your children with a note on the outside that reads "Please open in 2022."
Have the conviction of your position put to the test of history in front of your loved ones. Start here and see if there is anything else you care to undertake. Joel will always be Joel, but there are others who value where you stand. Let them know. Peace to all.

OK I'll play:
I believe that climate change is a natural occurring phenomenon and I intend on doing everything possible to secure a safe and prosperous future for generations to come.
Case in point, I'm championing an effort to convert a 200 light duty vehicle fleet from gasoline to compressed natural gas for my employer. This will reduce emissions dramatically, saving over 1.6 million pounds of carbon from entering the atmosphere per year. The equivalent of planting 4,469 trees every year. I feel that sustainability initiatives like this are paramount to our success.
Do I subscribe to man-made global climate change? No way!
Am I doing everything in my power to reduce the consumption of resources, and advocating green initiatives every chance I get? You bettcha!

James Lovelock is just one man, not a climate scientist, who has backed off from his original projections, which exaggerated the findings of actual climate scientists, and which did not appear in scientific journals. So when you say "even James Lovelock says we don't understand," it isn't saying much. So let me give the dead horse one more thump. 98 percent of climate scientists believe in human-caused global warming.
Expert credibility in climate change

Joel, as Ronald Reagan said, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so."
The vast majority of individuals on this blog lean so far left I'm surprised they haven't shot around to the right. Point being, on this site if you don't lean left they consider you a troll and will never see your point of view. They reinforce each other and can't fathom they could be wrong. Good luck, Joel. You'll need it on this site.

I don't mind people who have different views than me (in fact, I find it interesting if they are well thought out and articulated). However, I will call someone out if their evidence is flawed (no matter if I disagree with them or not).
If you're going to show up and say humans don't cause global warming, then give us pseudo-science to back it up, of course we're going to call you on it. This has nothing to do with trolling, this is creating a discussion based on science, not hyperbole.

From MPR:
As Duluth continues its cleanup efforts following the June 20 flood, plans to rebuild could be influenced by climate change. Brian Stone, Jr., associate professor of city and regional planning and director of the Urban Climate Lab at the Georgia Institute of Technology joins "The Daily Circuit" to talk about rebuilding Duluth.